Jump to content

Talk:King Noah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fringe interpretations

[edit]

A series of recent edits have tried to put forward a view that the term "whoredoms" used in the Book of Mormon to describe King Noah was talking about plural marriage (instead of prostitutes/courtesans), and that Abinadi was put to death because he was teaching trinitarianism. This is wholly original research, and is a thinly veiled attack on the LDS Church and it's teachings. Without a reputable, reliable, published, secondary source which supports this peculiar interpretation of the Book of Mormon, this material doesn't belong in the article. If in fact such a source can be found and properly cited, the material should be put in a separate section for alternate views, and not in the main description, as the largest denomination in Latter Day Saint movement (i.e the LDS Church, with 98+% of the participants) would not agree with this interpretation. —Asterisk*Splat→ 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noah

[edit]

This article is not written with a NPOV. Terms like "wicked" appear scattered everywhere and it's clear the author has a disdain for King Noah. Fair enough on that point, but for the sake of neutrality this whole article needs a rewrite. Reinflux (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources?

[edit]

Hi Big Money Threepwood. I noticed that you tagged this page for relying on too many primary sources. We have been really careful to avoid citing scriptures themselves and instead citing commentaries that interpret and analyze them. What did you have in mind when you added that tag? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources appear to be related to the topic matter. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardy and Thomas aren't primary as far as I can tell (whether Thomas is from a reliable publisher is another question), but you appear to be right about the rest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big Money Threepwood can you please elucidate what you mean by "related" and how it makes them primary sources? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can read wp:rs to understand more, but the short version, if a publisher is part of a church, it is part of the church. Being independent of the subject helps ensure the articles are neutral. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read WP:RS. That is about the reliability of sources. You tagged this page as having too many primary sources. Are you saying the sources are unreliable or that they are primary sources? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the publishers of material cited on this page are as follows:
  • CPT Press
  • Oxford University Press
  • Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
  • Deseret Book
  • Herald House
The first three are academic publishers in the field of religious studies. Only some of the listed publishers—Herald House, Maxwell Institute, and Deseret Book—have denominational affiliations. However, these have institutional separation, with their own editorial boards and staff. Affiliations with denominations (like the LDS Church and Community of Christ) that is not the same as being part of a church. Additionally, there are citations to independent news media sources, like Religion News Service (a news service about religion, but affiliated with no religion).
I support removing the tag that indicates using too many primary sources, as the page is not overreliant on primary sources. And to Big Money Threepwood's point about WP:RS, from what I see the page is not reliant on unreliable sources either. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But those aren't just affiliations, they actually are part of the Church... For example Deseret Books is a wholly owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation which is an LDS Church holding company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe the page is overreliant on primary sources? My count is that primary source references on the page as of this post are in the single digits. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 17 sources (loose count due to outdated citation style) I see 12 primary sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you counting as primary sources?
The following is a list of the sources that I think are definitively primary sources:
  • There is one reference to the Book of Mormon's pronunciation guide. This is included inside most editions of the Book of Mormon and is therefore primary.
  • There are five references to the Book of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon. These are from the Book of Mormon and therefore primary. This is on its face acceptable; other pages about religious texts include references in order to quote the text or refer to narratives, such as the Ten Commandments in Catholic theology page, and other pages about narrative books can cite the book itself as a primary source for the narrative (for example, The Two Towers).
Less definitive but arguable are two references (that could be turned into one) to the LDS Church's website in order to source the title of the Arnold Friberg painting and its existence on that website. I replaced one, since it is possible to reliably source the existence and name of Friberg's painting using other sources. The second is used to warrant that the painting exists on the LDS Church's website, which comes across as a non-controversial and appropriately sparing use of a possibly primary source.
There is also one reference to a poetry collection authored by Mildred Hunt, but that has an editor listed for what is evidently an anthology of poetry, which may indicate that what's being cited is not the poem itself (a primary source) but rather an editorial introduction to the poem (which would be a secondary source). Although I do not have a copy of the book personally, it is appropriate for me to assume good faith on the part of the other contributors. (By way of comparison, editorial content in The Poems of Emily Brontë edited by Derek Roper and Edward Chitham and published by Clarendon Press is not a primary source for Emily Brontë or her poems.)
There is also George Reynolds's Story of the Book of Mormon. I am aware that its 1888 publication date makes it not the most current scholarship. However, it is identified as part of Book of Mormon studies as a reflective field of textual analysis in the 2021 academic article "Knowing the Book Better: Orson Pratt, George Reynolds, and Janne M. Sjödahl on the Book of Mormon". It is therefore a secondary source. Its citation is appropriately circumscribed to give more weight to more recent studies.
The majority of sources cited on the page are secondary sources, and the majority of the content on the page cites to secondary sources.
I will remind all present (and as we have discussed before) that according to the policy page on Wikipedia, a primary source is Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. Historical documents such as diaries are as well.
Other sources listed on this page are not primary sources. They are not original materials close to the event (which would have to be the production of the Book of Mormon, barring the discovery of personal friendships with King Noah, an unlikely scenario). Other sources include editorial annotations, reference guides, philosophical and literary analysis, articles published in academic journals, an art historical analysis, and an independent news service.
If you try to identify some of these sources as "primary sources", please explain to me how they are original materials close to the event of the Book of Mormon. That would require them to be produced in the 1820s or 1830s, or by people who were or personally knew, for example, Joseph Smith, the man who dictated the book, or Oliver Cowdery, one of the principle scribes. Please explain how the source provides an inside look at the production of a book published in 1830. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Deseret Book, and Herald House are all primary in this context... We've already been over that, you falsely claimed that they were just affiliated and not part of their respective churches... You were corrected on that and now appear to be avoiding any discussion of those sources. Please don't write another wall of text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to be concise; I hope it does not come at the cost of clarity and comprehensiveness.
How does denominational affiliation in the twenty-first century make any of those publishers primary to a book published in 1830? In what way are the articles or books close to [the] event of the Book of Mormon, or directly involved in it? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be repeating the false claim that they are just affiliated and not part of their respective churches. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate this accusation. I think you're misrepresenting me. I am aware that the Maxwell Institute, Deseret Book, and Herald House are denominational presses. I think you are distracting from the crux of the question. If you are saying that publications from those presses are primary sources for the King Noah page, please elaborate how they are primary to King Noah—not how they are primary to the incorporated Community of Christ or for the incorporated Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just denominational presses, part of their respective Churches. A church is a primary source for information about that church. Same for any other sort of organization, the house press of Coca-Cola is a primary source when it comes to the history of Coca-Cola no matter how far back that history is. It doesn't matter that like King Noah the Coca-Cola polar bears never existed, Coca-Cola would still be a primary source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are these presses allowed to say King Noah isn't real? Why not? This is because of a lack of independence. If a source is constrained by the church, you can see how it isn't independent. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking about WP:INDEPENDENT or about WP:PRIMARY? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies has more academic latitude than you imply. To give just one example, 2023 volume of the journal includes an article titled "The Book of Mormon and Book History" which states, Frankly, as a nonbeliever [...] I don't think the future of Book of Mormon studies lies in using Book History to draw conclusions about the book’s veracity as a historical record or as a scripture (79). To give a second example, the 2017 article "Women and the Book of Mormon: The Creation and Negotiation of a Latter-day Saint Tradition" states, the Book of Mormon is an example of Eric Hobsbawm's concept of an "invented tradition" (83). The journal publishes scholarship from both practitioner-scholars and non-practitioners who are scholars.
In the field of religious studies, this is quite normal. Some of the most celebrated works of scholarship have come from religious presses and practitioner-scholars. For example, Eerdmans is a Christian publisher, and their 2019 The Miracle Lady: Kathryn Kuhlman and the Transformation of Charismatic Christianity received a starred review from the secular Publishers Weekly. Kristin Kobe Du Mez, a practicing Reformed Christian, wrote the Orwell Award-winning Jesus and John Wayne about the history of Reformed Evangelical Christianity. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison to Coca-cola polar bears suggests a misunderstanding. You seem to imply that either Community of Christ or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints created King Noah. Neither is true. King Noah appears in the Book of Mormon, a book published in March 1830. The Church of Christ's founding postdates that; it was created in April 1830 in response to the book. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was incorporated in the late 1840s. Community of Christ was founded as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1872. The Book of Mormon is not a creation of Mormonisms any more than the Old Testament is a creation of Christianities.
In any case, this would still be an overdrawn primary source claim. West Point Press is part of the U. S. Military Academy, which is a federal academy of the United States. If West Point Press published a book about the third amendment, would that book be a primary source because James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, was one of the founders of the United States? And this despite the book not being close to [the] event or directly involved?
WP:PRIMARY does not ask "is the publisher religious" or "is the publisher denominationally affiliated with a church"; WP:PRIMARY is about original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it was created in April 1830 in response to the book" I don't think it was... It seems to have been created by the same guy who wrote the book, it was not created independently. There is no equivalent text in non-Mormon Christianity (the equivalent would be if Jesus had written a book). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the religion. Mormonism believes in Jesus as much as other Christians do. Joseph Smith is more comparable to a prophetic figure, maybe like the biblical Peter. (Though these are not perfect comparisons, as the New Testament as a sacred text was created after Christianity came to be, not before.)
In any case, it still remains unclarified how these sources specifically are primary to King Noah specifically. In what way are the authors insiders to the Book of Mormon? (They were born long after 1830.) In what way are the articles and books close to the event? (They were written and published long after 1830.) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation has run its course for me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important discussion to resolve for Wikipedia pages about religious texts (including more specific pages for books and people within sacred writ). I've listed this discussion on WP:3O to see what other people think and try to develop a consensus. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since more than three editors are involved, I am declining your 3O request. Perhaps you can request a formal closure at CR if others involved feel that that would be helpful, or try the RSN. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I disagree with your characterization of the primary sources dispute as being extensively and adequately discussed on talk page with no clear resolution. Had Rachel Helps (BYU) not removed the primary sources tag, I was about to do so. The two users who expressed claims the article is over-dependent on primary sources have been non-responsive, unable to ground their complaints in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or hav explicitly said they are no longer interested in discussing. Could you clarify why you restored the primary sources tag so we can reach a resolution on this page? I think removing it would be appropriate. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did those two users agree that tag removal was ok? I don't see discussion about that. Left guide (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WCON, moving forward with page development on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily involve universal agreement. Insofar as there is not a clear policy-based argument for regarding the sources used on the page as WP:PRIMARY—i. e. original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved—and insofar as one of the participants expressed disinterest in further conversation (This conversation has run its course for me), it seems to me appropriate to move forward and settle the issue. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that makes sense, I'll self-revert then. Left guide (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that; thanks. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI you still count towards consensus if you stop responding, there is no survivor's privilege. I also think that your claim that we are "unable to ground their complaints in Wikipedia policies and guidelines" is false and I request that you retract it as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with P-Makato's characterization of the argument above. Jfire (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P-Makoto: will you be retracting the personal attack? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to take this discussion to the RSNB, but I want to represent the argument correctly. Jfire and Horse Eye's Back, is your argument that secondary sources published by presses that are funded by the LDS church (directly or indirectly) are primary sources for the Book of Mormon? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary contention is not about funding, its about being part of the Church. Indirect funding would be a different issue and one which I don't think we have addressed. The question is whether or not the Church is a primary source when it comes to describing its own texts, doctrines, and traditions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does your definition of "the Church" include Brigham Young University and the Maxwell Institute? Does it include all members of "the Church"? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would it possibly not? Those are wholly part of the Church, there isn't even a veneer of separation. Doesn't include members, we would have no real way to check either... As far as I know the LDS Church considers membership status confidential, not sure about the Community of Christ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, the only thing that would truly be a primary source for this article would be the Book of Mormon itself. In my opinion, sources that analyze the Book of Mormon and are published or influenced by any LDS sects are secondary but non-independent sources (falling under the category of WP:COISOURCE) in which case the {{third-party}} tag makes more sense than {{primary}}. Left guide (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sources that analyze the Book of Mormon and are published or influenced by any LDS sects are secondary but non-independent sources
I agree these sources are secondary. I disagree that "influence" necessarily constitutes non-independence for Book of Mormon studies. authors and publishers having connections religious traditions isn't the same as having a Conflict of Interest for texts, even texts of cultural/religious significance. Or are books about Esther or Ruth written by Jewish people or published by Jewish institution Yeshiva University Press non-independent? Are books about Paul the Apostle written by Christians or published by Baptist institution Baylor University Press non-independent? Are books about Thomas Jefferson or the Declaration of Independence written by Americans or published by the University of Virginia Press non-independent?
To quote non-Mormon literary academic and Book of Mormon studies scholar Elizabeth Fenton, To discount critical work on The Book of Mormon because it was written by a believing Mormon or takes the position that the book is authentic seems, at best, shortsighted to me. (We don't discount biblical scholarship written by Protestants, do we?) (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 27 [2018]: 140). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to engage in a super long drawn-out discussion about this, but my in-a-nutshell view is that independence of sources generally has more to do with the publishing press than the individual author. So if a scholar who happens to be LDS in their personal life has their work published by an independent reputable publisher, I see no problem with that. Left guide (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that the author having being of the faith would be an issue, thats a red herring. In terms of your other questions yes those would all be non-independent sources in those contexts, nothing wrong with using them as sources they just wouldn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on this topic on the RSNB. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Big Money Threepwood: Most participants in this subthread at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard seemed to agree that the sources are not WP:PRIMARY sources. What policy and specific sources justify the tag added? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_Noah&oldid=1220237116"